back. i have marked -- [inaudible] i'm zach ritter. what was taken away from the tape, the part that was erased? ciphers and things that that maybe watergate and said things about the kennedy assassination and that's partly why he wanted to break into watergate. >> he's heard many more tapes than i have. >> we don't know. i'll tell you, first of all, courts try to figure out what was on that piece of tape.

and they analyzed it and they analyzed it and they determined that it was a deliberate erasure and there is six to eight examples as somebody who started rereading it and started and stopped and started and stopped. the national archives 10 years ago before my time better analyzed the tape and used audio forensics to try to find services some bits of sound on the edges because when you raise some thing come you couldn't get everything. sadly there is nothing on the edges. just recently there is another attempt to look at it and evaluate it. it was also an attempt to make sense out of haldeman. when he met with the president,

he'd have a legal pad and he would note decisions come action items, thinks he got to do. he did not write transcripts of their conversation. he did not the nature of their conversation that day. so we know that they talk about watergate. we know that was gone from the tape is almost exactly covering the period survey were discussing art peers of the it's accidental, it is brilliant. but from the haldeman note, they were never designed to be transcripts. with just the scent of nixon discussing how to fight back, how to go after them. that's basically decided with a good offense. that's all we have.

the tape itself has provided no new clues. haldeman's does have rather limited in the national archives to a structural analysis to see if they could see whether there had been another page >> v. on what are doing now. i'll tell you what struck me as really interesting about that tape was how it had been handled paired with my job but the new watergate gallery and i looked into this. i had run a project analyzing tapes and it turned out that these tapes have gone -- this

particular tape if i'm not mistaken from june 20, 1972, the first time ultimate in nixon in florida. this is a first time next to a taping system. anyway, that tape went to camp david were at was worked on by the president and secretary and also remember people who could does every state. not simply richard nixon. frankly my sense is the person who might've done it is the one deniable person in the nixon entourage in that speech be reposted because it went to florida. what was it doing in florida? there's no evidence. i never saw any. whatever evidence i saw a nature was available and there's nothing more.

>> question on the left. >> my name is bradford era. i'm not going to ask you about conspiracies. probably safe to say american state and government than 50 years ago and things have happened in that period the vietnam war, iraq war, 9/11, katrina, et cetera. how much of that loss of faith in government do you ascribe to watergate? >> in vietnam. >> in the assassination. first of all, the credibility gap to civil conflict not of the nixon administration, but the johnson administration. we have a man named robert mcnamara to thank for that. you had this white house briefings -- pentagon briefing and people like other fine journalists on the ground and that is not going that way.

i'm not saying the public was naïve, but the public was a certain level of honesty. both kennedys and martin luther king was shot people about the nature of our political system. it's vietnam and watergate. look, president nixon's in 1973 makes the statement where he denies lots of things. a year later, evidence comes out, some of which he provides to the court, which contradicts almost completely what he wrote in 1973. so it didn't even take a year. as a citizen come you had to wonder. a slight two about vietnam by johnson and mcnamara and now i've lied to about about our

electoral process in our government's commitment to privacy that president nixon. but the democrats and republicans have lie to me. i was at an event a year and half ago with carl bernstein and satellite link. bernstein was exercised about the lifelong after he left the white house after two nixon to eradicate the list of things he did. how good job of historians, how he did in making us forget the things he did. >> at his funeral, bill clinton said let's not judge. they will, time that we judge's entire presidency by one thing. i think he was taking a broader view of nixon now. the war was johnson's war. he told sulzberger the u.s.

can't fold. he was a cold warrior. it was a great tragedy. 58,000 americans died in that war in 18 dozen died when nixon was president and they didn't have to. they were stuck there. but i don't think -- i think he became a valuable counselor in some ways. i think people will never forget what he did. but i think eradicate it is the right word, but will begin to see him for all his personal quirks that the further away they get from him, the more interesting people have i hope. >> i disagree slightly with jeff. i think there was an effort made to alter public perception. i do believe that richard nixon had a lot to offer presidents on ford policy.

one of the things i have to say about richard nixon is if you believe in is a hail mary pass. he was willing to take huge risks. not all presidents are willing to do that. he had a lot to offer the president. i know for fact that there was enough for to make it difficult for the tapes to become available. richard nixon by the way was totally in his right to assume the tapes belonged to him because every president since richard nixon out of their papers. the national archive didn't know they were kennedy tapes until the nixon tapes were released in the kennedy family dental the national archives, you know that faith in the warehouse to which really have keys?

varity despair. the national archives said no. so president kennedy, president johnson and nixon assumed the tapes they were making a belonged to them. when president nixon cut a deal at the overseer of the national archives to get back the tapes that he could destroy them in five years, congress intervened and passed a special law. the nixon library is the only govern by one of two record and a preservation act of 1974. that law stipulated that we members of the public had the right to get any information about the government power. the president nixon, farmer now president nixon sued and there was a long struggle. it took years and in fact only now are the tapes coming out. when i was there, we released 630 hours. there's another big dump of work

material coming out i hope this year. it's taken years for this stuff to come out because of richard nixon and his estate. so they did not want these tapes to come out. same with the papers. nixon sued for national archives and attract out. when i was there there were 35,000 pages that i thought out but have been put in there because the national archives is afraid about richard nixon nixon another's reaction would be. it didn't change the world. they're on the web are freely available, but the fact of the matter is that put enormous pressure, both legal and political in the national archives and match i got this process. if you care about access to government information, then support -- i don't work for them anymore. support the national archives. it is very little public

support, very little political support. so it's really important because richard nixon is not the only president to put pressure on the national archives to make things difficult. it's one thing dr. kissinger was from the west coast. when he first took office. this is nixon. this is all nixon. >> thank you. >> my name is florence reid. i'm going to read my question. this is direct it towards both of you. you mention nixon's relationship with g frederick mario perhaps

are relevant to nixon's legacy of racial politics with the other two african-americans who served in congress during his term, which were william goslin and out of clayton pio. he championed nixon the black community during his tenure as vice president and according to a not a biography was snubbed in favor of moral opportunity was her back delicate to travel with nixon's administration. that was the consistent pattern was very selective, although all three of those congressmen were democrats and obviously would've not been the first choice just for that reason on its own. but for it to have been limited in the circumstance like that, to deal with the say will shop on trancelike on this congressmen and the other two will be decisively turned away. how do you feel something like

that affects the legacy of a man who already has a very divided, depending how you could judge the relationship with king and the other things he did. >> eisenhower had no sympathy for the brown versus board of education system. whenever it's a crisis, such as the little rock crisis cannot eisenhower followed the law and the constitution and give it a five star general does. but he hated this whole thing. any particularly did not clayton powell, who is a demagogue. i'm not sure but nixon's role in the face. nixon was very friendly because they kind of like each other. >> the issue was who is actually in a list by who had been

ordered to make a decisive decision not to include them. nixon's politics during advisers that surrounded him during that administration. >> yes, i'm talking about president nixon, but an event that happened during his vice presidency. >> i'm not aware of one or the other. i'm sorry. >> richard nixon's attitude to his african-americans were shaped by some assumptions he had about genetics and raise, which he speaks of on the tapes. so i think that it's really useful for someone who wants to understand richard nixon's view of the world, to look at how he thinks about race and how he

applies his sound kind of genetics. i found it unpleasant. >> nixon's private attitudes were unpleasant, but i think in this case, i think he really support the aspirations of african-americans as much as a code. he wanted african-americans to succeed in society. >> i i think he assumed a ceiling. >> i think the tape showed that. he never discussed it publicly. >> i came to that conclusion listening to the tapes and seen some of his correspondence with dana patrick moynihan. one way of looking at his

welfare policy. >> question on your right. >> my name is velma montoya and i'm wondering what you discovered about the relationship between richard nixon and ronald reagan during those years. >> there wasn't much as been. he did think it was all that bright. i don't think he did match. i think he was probably more involved. i had a personal experience at the "washington post." for the first george bush was president, they said maybe he's not quite getting gorbachev. they said whatever and get nixon to read a piece? they said another way for the washington post. so we called saddle river and by gosh he wrote a piece. i came in and said recommending

some more. i forget who i spoke to. probably kathy o'connor. he was up all night working on it. so we ran it and apparently been scowcroft give it to president bush and his policy. >> another question over here. >> at evening. thank you very much. i have a question about during the time of the watergate hearings in the information is first nixon burglarizing osberg's office and the other things i don't know if needed and are not, but when they go into the future, the patriot act, subsequent legislation, how much of what extent got in trouble for now it illegal? [laughter] >> i'll tell you what we know about president nixon on the

osberg or billy, which have been not very far. what we know is that the president was told by john ehrlichman, who was his chief domestic adviser, but also was ahead of some thing called the plumbers, the group that was supposed to stanched seek plumbers. there had been an operation in los angeles and now was prior to that the plumbers were doing and had aborted. the president was told the timing of this call correlates exactly with the operation here. now, the president himself was not sure whether he ever authorized this because he asked bud crowe, the action officer

whether he authorized it. later he said whether he would authorize the district for national security reasons because there is a conspiracy linking information. the patriot act does not allow the u.s. government to break into place without a warrant. the area where the patriot act and some of what richard nixon did overlaps his warrantless wiretapping. this was a period when it was legal to wiretap for national security purposes without a warrant. but it had to be for national security purposes. the debate over richard nixon's wiretapping was did he do this for national security reasons for political reasons because the people he's wiretapping are journalists and also people who

used to be on staff. the warrantless wiretapping of the patriot area is a reminder of that area are not just richard nixon, but other presidents could wiretap without warrants. by the way, as a result of the nixon wiretaps, called the cob and kissinger wiretaps. congress and president ford and president carter signed bills, which gave us more privacy. it's a pastry bag that undermines some of the privacy that was a post-watergate phenomenon. for a lot of people, but said we were going back to that. we really didn't like before watergate, when presidents could do this willy-nilly. >> one of the things i was trying to do in this book was to not focus on watergate. that territory is owned by so many reporters.

i bet there's so many other interesting things to look at. >> and he proved that. >> i do get into watergate, but there is no point and kick in at around one more time. >> one thing that's interesting is this face the same man? and here's the problem, which is that we have almost everything this man did when he was in the white house from 1971, february february 71 to july of 73. imagine your life under that kind of microscope. or something like that for him as vice president. the only bits and pieces of his diary with those which appeared in his memoirs. said in her nixon of the 50s is not accessible and materials

we have. >> a lot of it is available if you go in to the yellow pads and find the notes he took. and there was a particularly interesting. when eisenhower was trying to get him off the ticket in 1956 fibonacci ticket, post for secretary of defense? ferments, nixon died it was some ways much harder than the whole fund crisis in his writing note of how he would announce he was going to voluntarily get off the ticket in this agonizing do it for the good of the country was terribly revealing other than tormented by security and not knowing what late. so you could find all these notes in meetings in the way he presented himself. he gave a talk to the cia discussing the job of the vice president and clearly you can

see the way he saw himself as a man who was a particularly special job. he was in the legislative branch and the executive branch. so it's very interesting you can find if you keep looking. there's a lot of files. >> they said 42 million pages. >> i didn't get throughout them. >> with a time for one last question. happy hour is about to start in the body. ticketmaster customer questions you have. our favorite bookstore is here selling copies beirne. last question. >> always thought it was interesting and relationship with the predecessors both eisenhower and johnson and how he applied to this

administrations. i am curious in my experience is going to nixon papers, it seems the first year he was applying the permanent campaign model in which he was letting politics and foreign policy. i'm curious how you see his relationship with the eisenhower years in terms of domestic policy and how that informed eisenhower's politics. if you see any lessons learned from the eisenhower years applied in the nixon administration as president. >> is that for me? he was definitely in full campaign mode when he was president, no question about it. we haven't mentioned merry chatter tonight was a very interesting man. he coached him when he first ran for congress in 1846, really coached him in 1950 inserter stood by his side during the crisis. he would give a course in

election politics and was a karl rove. he said you have to deflate your opponent. nixon learned the lesson. that part of nixon was there early. it wasn't just doing eisenhower's bidding. i'm not sure if the domestic policy what she meant by that. >> i guess i would say for the very first month he was 30 applied these lessons of domestic policy to determine his political future. i'm curious if he saw how many muslims do things like little rock to how to get out ahead of these things. i don't think eisenhower thought politically. eisenhower did what he knew he had to do. >> there's one foreign policy

lesson he learned. in her book he suggested he may assault up at the time. long story short, these israelis and this is a conspiracy to give it its nasser. the united states decided not to back grape root in advance. in fact puts real pressure to get out of it. richard nixon thought it was a mistake that the united states -- however you look at it, he was certainly very open when he starts talking about it. so he saw this as a mistake eisenhower had made.

so i think their negative lessons. >> he also said eisenhower changed his mind. i found the evidence eisenhower saw it as taking a virtuous anti-colonial stand there. he'd never regretted what he had done. >> yosi and jeff spoke they richard nixon was very interested in african leaders in the 50s by the time his president, he doesn't -- africa is going nowhere. so he also changes his mind. one last thing and i want you to tell us because they think it's the most interesting part of the nixon story. the ec seats in the 50s at the decision to change american policy towards china 20 years later? or is there something else he had to learn?

>> what he always has a fascination with that part of the world. i think growing up on the west coast, that you spent a lot to them. they were sent in them always. it wasn't until he wrote the piece for foreign affairs is published in 67 and i was the first time he went public with it the year before he ran for the presidency. i don't know. i think there is something en masse because of his fascination with asia and the east. not our cynic at way, but he was always evolving. >> that i believe. thank you very much. klotzbach

hour. >> good evening. my name is bill kauffman and i'm here to welcome you to the booktalk series. i also want to thank the federal society for cosponsoring tonight's talk. tonight's program features logan beirne, the author of a new book on america's first chief executive entitled "blood of tyrants: george washington and forging of the presidency."

this is very much a young law school book. it began as a paper while logan was a law student. the paper was written under the supervision of william eskridge. after graduation in 2008, working two years in a law firm, logan returned to yale law school in 2010 and began turning the paper into the book we feature tonight. appropriately we have william eskridge with us to comment on the boat. he's the author and the articles cover a wide range of topics. several of his books have been featured in previous booktalk series sponsored by her library. according to a recently published study by my colleague,

fred shapiro, mr. eskridge is one of the most cited in that i think that was probably a mistake. professor eskridge is a dynamic and innovative teacher and a wonderful mentor to young scholars like logan. without further ado, i will turn it over to logan. >> thank you very much. i would like to add professor bill eskridge is fitting for this talk because he's a descendent of george eskridge, the godfather of our nation. when george washington's mother was orphaned at 13, george eskridge tucker and i named her firstborn son after him. so thank you for coming today. >> wait a minute. now logan beirne -- he's quite

right, the logan beirne is also the site of distinguished workers who have relationship to george washington. as most of you know, george washington participated in the french and indian war that was probably his first real military experience. one of the officers serving under an ominous decorated his officer dan branch, who is a lineal ancestor pious mother's side and indeed after import model, one of the few battles george washington one, he turned the other this -- general braddock to his trusted and decorated officer, officer dandridge. we have that here today, which we will award to logan beirne.

[applause] which makes logan beirne would appropriate out there for today's book. >> they carried braddock's body in it, so i might take it off. it is funny because professor eskridge at night, our go back to colonial virginia. the last time we were speaking about politics that started a revolution. so are we sure this is safe? >> young law school is a hotbed of rest. >> said his ancestry and heritage comes into this book quite a bit, by and being revolutionary heritage, but also fascinated by the fact each and everyone of us has a rich family heritage and it's important we remember that and learn from it. this is on our national collective heritage and what we might learn from the founders

when they were forging what it meant to be the american commander-in-chief during war. so this book actually started way, way back when i was very young. my father would take us to a reenactment of the battle of lexington every year without fail and they would be a freezing cold morning in april and we be watching reenactors have a little battle. my favorite part was the breakfast afterwards. we would go to this little restaurant and it was wonderfully hokey. the waiters and waitresses who dress up in costumes and they would act the role of different patriots. my father had a dry sense of humor with torture the man dressed as washing and to try and make him break character. it was hysterical.

a guy every year would laugh essentially. so fast forward a decade or two later, sitting in professor eskridge's constitutional law class. you decide article ii, section two commander-in-chief clause. all this has is the president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy and it doesn't say much more. however, presidents throughout history have cited this commander-in-chief power for various meanings, whether as prisoner torture, military commissions, power vis-à-vis congress, all sorts of powers have been read into this cause. so you say too bad we can't ask the founders that they had in mind. i instantly thought of that waiter tonight that why don't we just ask him? i did the next best thing.

i went to the library virtually so how can you go through the tones of primary sources and the excellent collection we have of documents and diaries and newspaper clipping. we got a thorough look at what the founders were saying to another and what they believed and understood the term american commander-in-chief to need. sure enough i kept working on it and try to make first drafts. do you remember what she said? >> i like the title. it is george versus george versus george. george washington, george the third and george w. bush. >> is right. i was comparing the three. he liked the title, but you asked for more. so here is more. so i kept on working and eventually evolved into the we have coming out in the next

couple of weeks. what really struck me when i was doing my research was a quote from washington come over he foundation was decided not to during a gloomy age of ignorance and superstition, but during an epic for the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined in this auspicious. the united states came into existence as a nation and citizen shall not be completely free and happy. the file would be entirely their own. i saw that as a personal challenge to each and everyone of us to learn about this auspicious. and understand what was happening to see what the founders got together after the revolutionary war to read the constitution.

who is at the front and center as the president of the constitutional convention was george washington commander-in-chief and decide what it meant to be the commander in general and the president they were creating with this constitution. every new george washington would be the first president. in fact when it came time to elect him, he received every single vote. so as i was researching the book, i came across also it's a fascinating and gc in some of candlelit stories, some of which sounded like they were headlines from today regarding torture, regarding military commissions. were still discussing the mastermind of 9/11 10 years after his capture and what rights does he deserve?

they were debating the same things back then or even congress meddling in the president's war powers. as a big discussion during the revolutionary war as well. i'd like to start off with other stories as well with one story in particular because it helps establish a recurring principle i found time and time again while writing this and that is the divide between the president and commander-in-chief power over foreign nationals in defending a from foreign forces versus his power over american citizens and what power does he have to defend us from one another. so the story begins in a small band in upstate new york, the husband of her pain right now when you think of west point, he think a well manicured lawns,

you think of our nations military elite rushing to and from classes. think of monumental size buildings. you don't realize back in 1780 was a fledgling four that helped the state of the nation. basically the british were interested in capturing the entire hudson never because they wanted to cut off the rebellious new england states from the rest of the nation and as george washington said that would end of evolution if they were able to do so. so that the americans did not have a navy ourselves constructed a land-based defense. benedict arnold, he knew how valuable this was, so he concocts a planned to sell it for approximately 26 million u.s. dollars today.

for the story gets most interesting everyone knows about benedict arnold. it gets no answer seemed when you talk about his coat about his co-conspirators. john andre was british head of intelligence under clinton and joshua have been smith. so when it came time for benedict arnold to betray his country, he met with john andre to formulate a plan of attack and give him the plans of west point and let him know where to best attack for a in order to quickly win. they met on the side of the hud said, from west point in a wooded area and they were bickering the whole night about how to best he thinks.

you've heard of arnold. you could see how his son is very amenable fellow. he was still squabbling about the price. he was going on and on. sure enough the sun comes up while they are still talking. under a ship fired upon in the future you see it. so he's trapped. so arnold says okay, smith, andre kamath lets go back to smith's house and figure out another way to get you back to safety and british control of new york city. so they go back to the house and arnold says quick, put on smith's jacket. this will despise you so everyone will think you are an american. to me a favor and read with him back down to new york city to make sure he's safe. so everything seems great. they come to about tarrytown in

westchester and smith by this point is pretty tired. he spent the whole night in a couple nights before and wants to go back and sleep, so he turns around. sure enough six miles after their part, andre's job by militia men in the strip search them and find the plans to west point in his boots. but if the whole plan starts too unravel and arnold gets wind of this and he escapes. he gets away and then washington finds out and quickly send his men. it's very straight theme is he has -- washington house at his disposal at this point john andre, the british officer in the american citizen, the loyalist involved in the exact same plot.

they both have damning evidence against them. he says to smith and his interrogating had, i have enough evidence to a new on yonder tree. but it doesn't. instead for smith he provides them with a court martial, which is a type of military trial dating back to 13th century in which there are some safeguards in an element of due process to make sure they have a fighting chance to defend themselves. the panel is charged with deciding whether this man is guilty or not. so after about a think it was four weeks of trial, smith has damning evidence against him to have all these witnesses

testifying, saying the familiarity between andre and status and showing the code snippet used to describe a british officer, which is a big no-no. despite that, at the end of the trail they find out because he's an american, he has a high burden of proof. we have to prove he knew what he was doing was wrong and they couldn't. but the high burden, he was acquitted. in fact, they were so shocked the civilian authorities took them back to prison on other charges. but he was actually a slippery character escape back to new york. andre state was far different. instead, washington it is the

resolution on the books that says enemies of the sort shall be tried by court partial. instead, he doesn't sound thing. he creates the military commission. sometimes mirrors a court-martial, but it doesn't have to. there's no right to due process. it is at the whims of the commander to determine whatever rules he want. it's seen as sort of a quick and dirty way to punish the accused. and i've been looking to see if the man is guilty. they think of what punishment and assume he's guilty. so under a receives -- i shouldn't even call it a trial, but a two-day trial in which they basically been some evidence, adventured hearsay can stand instead out as defenseless

and friendless. sure enough he's hanging. he fell for this young andre because you realize the real enemy was arnold and this young man is a very likable character. he was caught in this sort of us. but at the same time, washington felt very strongly but his role as american commander-in-chief was to defend the nation and he needs to send a strong signal that those who crossed him and potentially harmed his people, they'll be punished severely. so the title of the book is called "blood of tyrants." i gave it that title after the famous jefferson mind, the tree of liberty must be refreshed

from time to time but the blood of pastries and tyrants, which i find very startling if you think about it. i think the founding fathers and the whole generation in general sought to create the government we have now in the constitution we still use to spare us the they endured. they wanted to create a public where people were protected. so they're about to give the presidency the power to protect us from foreign tyrants. but not so much power he could become a tyrant himself. thank you. i look forward to questions and hope to work in more stories. >> grave. let me say a few words really following him okemos presentation. i wrote a blurb for the book. it is quite a page turner. books about george washington.

what's not to like about that? it is quite an excellent page turner. the reason the original impetus of the whole project is to think about the commander-in-chief clause has been a focal constitutional argument for a number of cases. i was one of president truman legal justifications, relying on opinions with fdr for the proposition that commander-in-chief clause gave the president in time of war some authority to confiscate property on american soil. so we see that as long-ago import moment in the case that we continue to see it in the war and terror and most recently on the debate over president obama's continued engagement in

the libyan hostilities. apparently contrary to the meeting of the worst power which followed law school thinks is constitutional. as he told my class, it's not constitutional ayes applications. apparently the obama administration thoughts would be a constitutional for congress to provide too many limits on the president's power to can act hostility against libya. where the czar, we don't know. the commander-in-chief clause is a very constitutional provision. look at this project is the first one to give some legal purchase on what might have been the original meaning of the commander-in-chief clause. but this is drafted in philadelphia, the only commander-in-chief was george washington. they certainly did not have george the third in wind.

either governors and i'm. after the heads of the militias in the states is also not their model. but instead, their model if they had one was george washington. one of the many things focused book does a wonderful detail gives you an idea the fact that george washington and the reasons he was claimed. it is not a successful general. he was not an attention grabber. he was not a self publicist. sos notwithstanding all that he became this universally admired figure and as a model to the commander-in-chief clause. so it's extraordinary relevant, both as a constitutional matter

and thinking about either the original meaning or the ongoing need for the commander-in-chief clause to know sent them about the experience that produced this cause. i think as everybody expected, george washington was then the first president and first commander-in-chief under article ii, section two of the constitution. you have to read the book to get the full flavor of the hoboken has given me this wonderful story of the court-martial of military commissions. three things that occur in the book. the book does have bearing and this is a good reason to read it as well if you want to talk about torture in military commissions which our contemporary issues and had parallels during the revolution but washington was commander-in-chief. he did take liberties to torture what we would consider torture

the enemy soldiers that have fallen into his path and he did on some occasions to play military commissions rather than court herschel to even ask if you spies from other sites. it's very interesting and there's three broader lesson they recur throughout the book. the one that struck me the most that i think remains tourmaline today is a structural matter is that there was about it if congress for most, but not entirely all a george washington's tenure as commander-in-chief. i was very struck and you could even write another book on this, and how utterly respectful washington was at the instruction that he got from congress. so this is someone who is off to

an aggressive, not bashful about using the power he picked a good. he also followed this approach during his presidency. he was very interested in the views of the content of congress. he was respect over the continental congress pastor rick is a generally followed them. this book is a wonderful example of what a republican theory such as the animated the revolution itself of the principle of the constitution after the revolution, what that might mean for the commander-in-chief. this insert degree of humility that washington displayed as commander-in-chief towards the direct use of the continental congress. and i might add, this is the same point. there is an extraordinary amount of humility washington displayed

with regards to go out for nation. so even when he would be delegated discretion by the content of congress for this wonderful treatment upon her in the character we have a plunder is the 18th and 19th century was antistate. and remembering this, please correct me on more than one, would execute his own people for engaging in plunder contrary to his instructions. in other words, taking food, property, et cetera, et cetera. this is not only where he was authorized by the cot in the congress to take food and property and did not, but in deference to what he can figure law of war or with the law for

should be a general washington's hand. so i think that's very remarkable and that's the first workable thing about this account, which i think helps us understand the original meaning of the commander-in-chief clause and provide some lessons for thinking about it going forward. second point -- second point which is also important is that if you are the commander-in-chief, washington provided the first example and it will be followed by subsequent examples of the inherent dynamism that comes with being a commander-in-chief. in other words, you can mount the law of war, directives from the continental congress. you can have even a grimace on the part of washington and his own generals. but the conditions of the

battlefield, the conditions of strategy beyond the battlefield, the conditions of the ongoing evolution of the political situation meant that george washington had hide improvised quite a lot. so even the faithful legion, which he revealed himself to be in one reason he was so universally admired. even the faithful agent was a highly dynamic reporter of the discretion as well as the restrictions adopted by the cardinal congress. sometimes he would refuse to exercise the discretion based upon what he thought was appropriate and needed for the larger strategic deleterious goals he was vested with. one of many things focused book does is show you that many leaky parts of the ship that was there fighting for us in the

revolution. bring every 50 pages were about ready to lose the entire shebang because of various circumstances. it's a very interesting take on the resolution. one of the things washington did, he responded brilliantly to terrible would violate restrictions on the cot, congress. in a constitutional interpretation. there's a third point, which is quite remarkable about this book in which i never really thought about or even noted about about the american revolution. that is something sad or mccain would appreciate. senator mccain has been one of the leading and most construct is conservative voices of the

whole torture debate and senator mccain have expertise since he didn't have an extremely celebrated career in the military and was himself tortured. someone who was himself tortured was in violation of laws were at a very capacious understanding of the limitations that should be legally and morally opposed upon the president. i spoke in sf for it, president washington did direct the torture on occasion of enemy soldiers who had been captured. but i thought was interesting about tokens account was how rarely this occurred and tended to tight and trade notion of reciprocity. this is a big thing about the law of war generally.

he sounded so interesting than the revolution that general washing 10, when he had reports that the british were mistreating and sometimes we did know the details of mistreatment were two discrete, but when washington would hear examples of reddish mistreatment of american prisoners, he would very often make a shadow or even a charade of i'm going to visit the same on prisoners we have teacher facing american forces. there is a kind of bargaining that went on in the revolution between washington and officers on the british side about how prisoners support should've been treated. it's actually very interesting because it gives us an excellent insight into the way in which the ground-level, the way the

rule of law operates. not just directives by conventions or by congress is a not just battlefield decisions made by the commanders, but also the dynamics of the treatment and the reciprocal print suppose that washington followed to some extent as well. by the way, for you law students, i think that would be another great book. write about the revolution from the british point of view. you know, the breath throughout the entire book. however the washington forces were magenta on how is around

new york city new york city, washington tells us he could've wiped them out. general cornwallis, overconfident in this. you know, this is the federalist society. is there not a tory branch of the federalist society? i was supervised. i am a tory. the mass of the teaching market, alan schwartz interviewed me for a job. it is from the british point of view. we rather overly and i'm not so sure with such a great thing. that's a terrible thing for me to say that we actually won the revolution. we would have been in slavery 50

years later. after all, canada godfrey about the same time we did without shedding innocent lives. [laughter] so i'm actually kind of a tory and i do think there is a tory point of view to be written. a lot of these federalist society thoughts are shaking their head coming up, got my soul here. i think that would be very useful. that's a little bit of a diversion, but you see some of the larger normative implications that i hope stimulates more of a conversation about the early practice that should inform our understanding of the commander-in-chief clause as well as larger separation of powers.

>> professor deems to. >> we not only can about the fact he would have to be assimilating and integrating the south after the war was over. i am wondering what was going on during the american revolution and whether washington was motivated in his attitude about justice towards the troops i sent of loyalists would still be existing in the mid-in the event washington prevailed in the revolutionaries succeeded. >> absolutely. that's an excellent point. the revolutionary war was a civil war. people forget that. about 40% of the population were patriots. another 40% were sort of in a friend. they would switch back and forth and the remaining 20% were

loyalists. always fastening about the way washington approached it was these loyalists were still american citizens. they were seen as a dissenting minority within the republic. so if they broke the law of the majority created, they would be punished, but they were still american according to church washington. so when his soldiers to be starving, they would go out to loyalist homes particularly than they would ransack them. washington would do it thorough investigation and find these men and sometimes have been executed. the thinking behind this was that this was a war in which he was trying to win the populace over and also define what it meant to be an american nation. so at the end of the day, most

escapes, they went to britain or elsewhere, but he knew they would be staying and it'd be americans and and has republican values that each a street and with respect. >> your story about andre almost flies in the face of that logic in the sand -- >> the opposite. john andre, the british, he was hanged after two days in the commission. but smith under the exact same circumstances as they loyalists and you'd think you'd be given the same treatment. he was then. he was given right, weeks and weeks of trial and he got off. >> dean step.

we favor the microphone, though. >> thank you, logan. it's going to be fun to read this book. just a couple questions. first, let me just point out, andre had violated the laws of war by his actions, so he's going to be tried someplace. where would you suggest he be tried? it's not clear to me the international required courts-martial themselves. canada did not become independent until 1867. they're a minor skirmishes before them. my real question is what about the articles -- >> slaves did not become free until 1866 in this country. that's about the same time.

but the point of view of many americans, they were not free until the same time canada was. >> true. i was correcting the record that she said around the same time. but my real question has to do with the articles of confederation. uses the term commander-in-chief. one of the things that could not be done without the consent of the united states was appointed commander-in-chief. in fact, much of the articles are about making war. it's so interesting and they're really scared by this recent experience. i wonder if elected in a historical materials that there's anything to learn from you. receiving the constitution. >> thank you very much. regarding andrea, i think washington did the right thing. the congressional resolution to safety as.

however, washington realized he could not affect the validity of the message he needed to sign. so he used the military commission against andre had properly so. that's regarding the first point. regarding the articles of confederation, they were a bit of the mass. so washington was appointed commander-in-chief in 1775 before the articles were enacted. the articles -- the governing documents under which we were being governed, it was messy because of a sort of coming in now, who was in charge. so initially, the continental congress micromanaged washington and they had various manes who

covered the war effort. i sort of describe it as the war effort under the articles were sort of like a schizophrenic squirrel, jumping from problem to problem and trying to correct these mistakes and who's in charge. when we get to the battle of new york, washington doesn't think he can defend new york city. we have no navy were fighting the greatest navy honors. where he tried to defend an island? this is not washed on washington. he was smart enough to know he should not be defending this island. congress is now, we expect you to make every effort to defend this. and they lose badly, not surprisingly so. at that time the british are chasing the continental army towards philadelphia, the seat

of our government, that's when congress finally says, all right, this isn't working. when you change what it means to be the american commander and that's what they actually grant washington was dictatorial powers and adjust the makeup of how they're going to run this war. it originally was only for one week while they we convene in baltimore. an athlete, washington starts getting his act together. the congress does, just keep these people away from us. you could be a dictator. dictator back then was not a dirty word that it is now. it just meant he had full military control to make decisions. he was a political dictator, where he can have edicts and cover and allow the congress never gave up their power over the people. over the military, he became the number one in charge.

they kept extending this dictatorship over and over and that is sort of how they came to create this american commander-in-chief through fits and starts to begin with a weak commander in end up with a strong commander over foreign national. >> are you making an argument or at least a suggestion that the term commander-in-chief is used in the constitution nist about previously in the articles refer to that commander-in-chief whom washington was at the end, where the continental congress had given them dictatorial powers as a military commander? >> that's absolutely right. an evolving term.

originally the term didn't mean that much. as they learn from the war, he came to mean a whole lot more. >> do you have contemporaneous nose so reflections were letters i do the constitutional convention are previously balbis back edge? >> they do. the congressmen were debating this ferociously. washington himself was trying to determine, okay, i have all these powers now. which ones should i use? which one should i not use? it was an experiment in america really was a great experiment from the start. ..

commander-in-chief. and yet was appointed to him was the war council. and he arrived on the scene where they had british trapped in boston where they talk funny. i don't know if they talk funny than. did they talk funny then? no. not yet. >> not yet. i'm >> anyhow, washington said wait a minute, i'm not the greatest general in the world.in we've got these people all to gt trapped in one time. they tried to get out and can'td get out. why don't we go get them and end this war? you might ruin the town. th beat they beat the yankees to this. kind of upset about. you had to remind me of that.

[laughter] but in the book, logan has one couple of things that i think are very dramatic. one, the research he had me go around in circles researching some of that stuff. very true. he had -- george washington was 22 years at the time. he was with the british national guard and a surveyor, and the french were going to the lands and they would survey parcel of lands so many miles this way or that way. put a camp in the middle and say this is ours. the british decided we'll do the same. they get ahold of washington who is a surveyor and military person. they sent him with a group of surveyors and builders do what the french were doing. he wasn't out too long when he ran to a group of ibd yab.

the head indian wasn't known as a chief. i don't remember the chiefs, the head indian said, i'll help you out. i know, the french, they are not happy with you people being out here. we know the land. we have good parcel of land you would like to have. we'll help you keep the french away. washington 22 years old needs all the help he can get. the indians go off in front of them down the trail and come back and said, there's a group of french soldiers out looking for you. and they're on the way down. they'll be here in the morning. unbeknownst to washington, the head indian, in this particular group, his father was killed by the french colonel the local colonel . >> the french that hate his

father -- [inaudible] found no evidence of . >> he tells washington they're coming down here. and washington sets up a trap. an ambush and kims 46 -- kills 46 of them. later on, the king of england said that a young man in the colony started the french and indian war. the french didn't take too kindly to it happening. but when the they killed 26 french surveyors, workers, sold injure, whatever diplomatic party. and the head indian brings the cornel, who killed his father. chops off the top of his head, reaches to the skull and brings out the brain. and says to his father, up in heaven, i avenge you father.

george washington -- i think that would disturb me a little bit if it happened. george washington just stood there and wasn't much he could do. when he reported back to england as far as what went on, he said, we ran to some french military. the local indian help us subdue them. and the words he used was thrill of the bullets flying through the air and gave thrill to my heart. that was his interpretation during the battle. >> it impacted his approach. so originally when he was at twos ton he was listening to every word of the war counsel that the congress said appointed for him. actually it was filled with novices that knew little about war. yet washington felt obligated to listen to every word they said.

i came to boston. he listened to them during an attack. kay -- came to new york and didn't want to withdrawal early enough. he listens. once he becomes dictator, congress says you keep listening to that war counsel, go ahead and stop. so as the war concludes it's how to happened in the beginning of the war. the middle and the enhe feels any longer he became more confident to the ability of each. to dictate what the military was going to do. and he knew that one commander and one person in charge. in order defend the nation. >> you use the word dictator. assuming powers that congress --

[inaudible] so describe it as a military dictatorerer us is a political dictator. as it went back to the roman republican when since given the powers in the roman senate really just disband and took full control. the americans, they love the classic. and they knew all about this. but they had their own twist on it. and their twist was that we give you as dictator all military power over defeating the enemy. it came to political power, they felt retained at all. so washington was unique among revolutionary general in that he never declared marshall law. he -- whenever it came to a matter of american citizens,

american property, he made sure to defer to the congress or the state authorities. so in the -- and the defined way of being of control over the military and tactful divisions he was dictator. when it came to a host of other political decisions that were being made, he was very careful to not infringe upon congress. >> other questions? yes, sir. thank you. i would like to follow up a little bit on the an dry smith example. my understanding is an dry was tried as a spy where as smith is tried for treason. would it dick date legal procedures with regards to citizenship for either of them. >> it's true. they are both involved in the same conspiracy.

they are both involved in the same plot. and washington, his knee jerk reaction was to have him hanged as well. but when it came down it, he wasn't as swayed by that as he was by the nationality and -- that's who originally vowed to be loyallests. they were americans and had rights. we are going have to potentially live after them after they win the war and trying to win the heart and miebdz of the american people. that was more the defining factor. because when it came for washington he was not looking at distinguishing in that way as you are. he was more looking -- these two men were in can hoots. they worked together and almost sold west point.

more domestic law than congress law. it was try bid court-martial. washington was making a bigger move in the an dry case. >> he was. going to the unauthorized tribunal. >> there was two resolution in the book. the first, against foreign enemy acting as spies. and then there was another resolution that directed americans that were procolluding with -- precluding with the enemy. both said we're going try them by the court marble. they set up for the court march the due process protections, for example, the size of the board

various -- the not right to counsel. there are safe guards in there to make it a fair trial. [inaudible] charge each individual. >> i think the question is what are the specific charges against andre and smith respectively? >> it was both for both of them it was for working to betray west point. they originally had ten charges against smith and they narrow it down to one. very general you were working with the enemy to betray west point. and for andre, it was similar. it was you were working with benedict arnold to betray west point and you're doing so in

deguise. >> followup on that. or whatever -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm british but i promise i'm not a spy. i believe -- [inaudible] >> check him. >> welcome. [laughter] >> all right. my question is -- when we talk about war during the revolutionary period, you see things like a lot of maltreatment of prisoner, acceptability, and things like -- [inaudible] or things like that. but we're not in that paradigm anymore. we've had convention try to stop things -- [inaudible]

nawrnl how does it affect washington as president for military commissions and problems like that? >> that's an excellent point. washington did x and dismowld x today. instead, you know, i take the more humble approach where, you know, washington meant to be the american commander. i think it's important for us to look at the american history basically it's important for anyone who believes believes in democracy to do so. you know in the preamble of the constitution it doesn't say congress to form a more perfect union or the president. it was the constitution formed by we the people.

see what we the people fought when we were enacting article ii section ii. and, you know, back to today sure a lot has changed. for instance, you were mentioning how torture was often used for reprisal and sort of switch from that to a more individualized system of justice . the same time this history is important starting point for the investigations, and some people -- there's, you know, big debate about originnism and how much weight you should give it. it's important precisely because major players believe so. for example, look at the washington, d.c., the heller division which the supreme court, both sides of the supreme

court, are using these historical arguments to decide the cases. so it's originalism is alive and well, as we know. it's important to look at the history as at least a starting point as we discuss the issues. >> let me follow up on that, though. tell me if this is one of the lessons you can draw from your account. because i think one of the punch line of the book is the concept of the republican understanding of the commander in chief clause, and a major change circumstance is that we have the serious international commitments that are formally entered in to conventions. had had a republican understanding of the job.

which required him to be very attentive to the commitment that were made by the nation. now in 1770s were not in a position to make a lot of international commitment. but question. we didn't have a lot of statute on the book. we a lot of resolution. would you not say that one of the lessons of washington's experience is that the commander in chief has a constitutional obligation to take seriously the commitment that the nation has made in conventions like the geneva convention. i might add the convention against torture. not to mention, statute of the congress' past making torture a crime and so on and so forth. >> absolutely. i think that the washington was very eager to catapult us to the realm of nations.

it was important we were acting as a good citizens. he sort of saw the united states -- shining democracy and creating the republican that would the higher principal. i think it's important for the commander in chief to be looking at the commitment that we make. >> others? more questions? [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] >> the former wants to make a speech. i spent many summers in canada canoeing and singing "oh canada "which is a beautiful anthem.

i made it a point in junior high school of studying the history of canada and why i have that little fact stuck up there. thank you. >> okay. [inaudible] there was a young lady of the evening they called her. she was going back and forth from boston to the american side, the american lines. and it was discovered -- the reason going back so quickly and so often. she was spying carrying letters from the british to the american contact they had and the army. washington's army. they caught her through some trickery they did. but she would not tell them who the american person was that she had her contact with. she refused to tell them and a number of accounts it said --

this is all it said. that washington and some of his staff spent the night with her and in the morning she devolinged who the person was. >> at length brought to a confession. she was proof against every thing we tried for the length she was brought to the a confusion. and -- confessions and it brings up good point how washington saw torture as something that we should rise above. and he wanted to get past the barbaric war of the past and raise our level of conduct. then as the, you know, the revolution wears on, he starts realizing -- he says i'm morally opposed to torture. i'm more morally opposed to not saving american lives. and that's when these instances

start arising when it comes down is i'm i need to do this to save american lives. that was a different story. >> i think thely briers is telling us bring it to a close. >> i'm not happy. >> the districter of zero dark thirty will dot movie version of this book. [applause] [applause] >> booktv in prime time continues tonight with the books about the american workforce. >> it's all tonight here on

c-span2. >> this morning remarks in the new head of the securities and exchange commission, mary jo white. she's expected to talk about financial regulations at an event hosted by the investment company institute. live coverage at 8 o'clock eastern on c-span2. later a panel discussion on the economy and fiscal policy. we will hear from two former senate budget chairman. live at 10:30 a.m. eastern also on c-span2. >> we believe that the opening up the gates of our memory, we are bringing people closer together. we bring people now to a realization of what a human being, a person, an individual can do. and i think of those who saved

the lives, all these christians who saved the lives while risking their own. every one of them is a hero. >> our 20th anniversary i ask you to recommit to replace the direct memories of those who are still with us, thank god. with the records of this museum so that no one can ever forget these stories and this lesson. and i ask you to think about how the historic slaughter and suffering of the holocaust reflects the human disease that takes different forms. the idea that our differences are more important than our common humanity. >> this weekend on c-span, bill clinton and nobel peace prize winner mark the 20th anniversary of the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.

saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern. then at 8:30 from houston, the nra's annual meeting on c-span2's booktv this weekend, your questions for the world turned upside down author melanie phillips, in depth live sunday at noon eastern. and that six, booktv in london, politics, war, history, religion and culture as we start a 12 week series with the british authors. and on c-span3, the 1963 birmingham race riots part of american history tv saturday at 8 a.m. and again at 8 p.m. >> at a news briefing yesterday defense secretary chuck hagel confirmed reports that the u.s. is considering arming the sunni rebel groups. is joined at the pentagon news conference by british defense secretary philip hammond. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. secretary hammond and i just completed a productive session

regarding our two countries' continued common interests. i'd like to thank secretary hammond for the u.k.'s strong partnership with the united states and his friendship. in march, i had the opportunity to meet with the u.s.-u.k. combined chiefs' conference at fort mcnair. at that meeting, that was recreated as a gathering of the american-british uniformed military leadership during world war ii, much discussion revolved around our continued relationship and partnership. our history of being allied in defense of common interests and common values continues to strengthen the relationship of our two militaries. the discussion secretary hammond and i have had today, which we will continue this evening, reflect our shared desire to deepen our defense cooperation in the face of very complex and unpredictable global security.

i discussed with secretary hammond my recent trip to the middle east, which highlighted the many challenges to our shared interest in that combustible region of the world, including iran and syria. i also expressed appreciation for the significant contribution and sacrifices of british forces to international efforts in afghanistan. i would also like to express my deepest condolences to the people of the united kingdom for the three british soldiers killed this week in helmand province. as the transition to afghan security control continues, the united kingdom will continue to play an important role in helping field strong and effective afghan national security forces. as we emerge from more than a decade of war of shared sacrifice, our discussions also focused on preparing this alliance for the future. yesterday, secretary hammond had

the opportunity to visit the naval air station pax river to observe ongoing testing of the f-35 joint strike fighter. the united kingdom's continued commitment to this program and our growing cooperation in new priority areas like cyber, is helping ensure this alliance has the kind of cutting age -- cutting edge capabilities needed for the future. over these past few weeks, the u.s. and u.k. also commemorated the 50th anniversary of the polaris sales agreement, a commitment that has been the cornerstone of our cooperation and shared contribution to strategic deterrence. i congratulate secretary hammond on the royal navy's steadfast maintenance of its submarine-based nuclear forces and their continuing round-the-clock patrols. i strongly support the united kingdom's decision to maintain an independent, strategic deterrence.

strong alliances and partnerships are becoming even more critical, more critical because both the united states and united kingdom face the challenge of meeting global threats in a new era of constrained resources. as our department undergoes the strategic choices and management review here, secretary hammond and i discussed the united kingdom's defense strategy and ongoing efforts to rebalance its forces. dod has gained many useful insights from recent british experiences, and our staffs continue to coordinate closely on strategy and defense planning. we'll also continue to work closely together to ensure the nato alliance has the capabilities needed for the future, which will be a focus of the nato defense ministerial next month in brussels, where we will both attend. i look forward to seeing secretary hammond there and continuing our discussions

today, again tonight, as to how we continue to build an effective working partnership around the world. again, thank you, secretary hammond, and welcome. we're glad you're here. >> thank you very much. and good afternoon, everybody. i'm delighted to be here this afternoon, and i'd like to thank secretary hagel for his warm welcome. as you know, i enjoyed a very close relationship with your predecessor, and i'm delighted that we've been able to pick up exactly where i left off in my discussions with secretary panetta. secretary hagel and i have had detailed discussions about the common security challenges we face, focused, of course, upon afghanistan, syria, and iran. on afghanistan, despite the tragic news that three british fatalities in helmand province occurred yesterday, we remain determined to see through our vital task of preventing afghanistan once again from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists. the events of the last few days

have shown us that both our militaries continue to take risks as they carry out their dangerous tasks there, but the mission remains on track, and the increasingly capable afghan security forces now lead on providing security for nearly 90% of the afghan population and lead roughly 80% of all security operations. their capability will continue to grow as international security assistance force forces draw down towards the conclusion of our combat mission by the end of next year. on syria, secretary hagel and i reaffirmed our shared view that the syrian regime must end the violence, stop the slaughter of its own people, and recognize that it is no longer the legitimate representative of the syrian people. we continue to believe that a diplomatic solution is needed to end the bloodshed and that assad and his close associates can have no place in the future of syria.

we in the u.k. are stepping up our support to the national coalition and remind the regime that nothing has been taken off the table in the light of the continuing bloodshed. we remain increasingly concerned at the emerging evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and we demand that the regime allow the u.n. to investigate these allegations. assad should be in no doubt that the world is watching and will hold him to account, him and anyone else to account who is found responsible for the use of chemical weapons. as we face up to these security challenges and those posed by iran, we also face significant budget constraints, both in london and in washington. secretary hagel and i have addressed the issue of defense reform and how we can get more bang for our buck on both sides of the atlantic. greater military cooperation is at the heart of this, and we also need to look at how we can encourage our partner countries

within european nato to reform their forces to take on more of the security challenge with more effective and deployable forces. of course, the u.k. and the u.s. already enjoy a very high level of cooperation and interoperability, but we have agreed to explore what more we can do in our armed forces to drive greater efficiencies through collaboration together. yesterday, as secretary hagel has commented already, i went out to pax river and saw one of the fruits of our collaboration, a british pilot flying an f-35v in vertical take, vertical landing mode. and i'm delighted about the progress that we are making in this project, and in others, such as the common missile compartment, for our next generation of nuclear-armed ballistic submarines. the u.k. and the u.s. remain in

lockstep on these projects, and as we take them forward, we will ensure the continuity of those vital capabilities. the british-american defense a relationship is strong and far reaching. it will remain the bedrock of britain's defense policy, and will continue to be at the heart of our special relationship for decades to come. secretary hagel, i look forward to working with you to maintain and strengthen that relationship in the coming months and years. thank you. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> for both of you, but secretary hagel beginning with you, if you could be as concrete as possible here. now that we know the white house is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels in syria, why are you in agreement with that fresh look at rearming the rebels, since general dempsey, your top military adviser, has

already said he's very skeptical about that? my second question, very specifically, why have you, since the emergence of the chemical weapons intelligence, stepped up or put new intensity into looking at what might be done in syria? and the bottom line for both of you gentlemen, mr. hammond, you said all options are on the table but there's a good deal of legitimate skepticism about that. why, with respect, should anyone believe any of this is other than political window dressing by both governments? there seems to be no indication that either government is going to exercise any option. >> well, first, as to your question regarding rethinking options -- >> rethinking arming the rebels. >> arming the rebels. that's an option.

>> [inaudible] >> that's an option. i think secretary hammond friend it rather clearly when he talked about what is the objective for both our country. certainly the united states, stopping the violence, stability in the region, and transitioning, help and be part of that transitioning syria to a democracy. now, those are objectives. you're always come any country, any power, any international coalition in partnership is going to continue to look at options, how best to accomplish those objectives. this is not a static situation. a lot of players are involved. and so we must continue to look at options and present those options based on all contingencies, with the focus that we all have i think any international team unity to achieve the objectives the best way we can.

so we are constantly evaluating, i think the president noted a couple days ago in his press conference, talking about rethinking options. of course, would you. >> so the administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels? >> yes. >> and may i ask why? what has changed in your mind? and does this put you respectfully at odds with u.s. military, general dempsey, who said it's not a good idea in his new? why are you rethinking arming the rebels? >> you look at everything all options. it doesn't mean you do or you will. these are options that must be considered with partners, with the international community, what is possible, what can help accomplish these objectives. we have a responsibility, and i think the general dempsey would say the same thing, to continue to evaluate options. it doesn't mean that the

president has decided on anything. >> are you in favor of arming the rebels no? >> i'm in favor of exploring options and see what is the best option in coordination with our international partners. >> have you come to the conclusion yet? >> no. >> even after all these weeks you have no conclusion? >> conclusion about what options we would use? >> conclusion about, you said the administration yes is rethinking arming the rebels. you said yes. you have no conclusion yet about whether you support arming the rebels? >> we are exporting all options to achieve the objectives that i just talked about. these are not static situations. and you must always look at different options based on the reality on the ground, based on what you want to achieve, based on the future, based on our international partners. we talked about, secretary hammond and i, many options.

we talked about relationships. when i was in the middle east last week, i was in five countries, as you know, discussed syria in all five countries. >> mr. hammond, if i could. >> i won't repeat everything secretary hagel has already said but i agree with what he is said. this is not a static situation. it's a rapidly changing situation. we've kept all our options open. we're not thus far provided any arms to the rebels, but we have never said something -- said it's something we will not do. but the word that hasn't come out so far in this discussion is located. both of our nation's will only do what we legally can do. certainly in our case we have been subject to an eu ban on supplying armaments to the rebels. we will look at the situation when that ban expires in a few weeks time. we will continue to keep the situation under review.

but we will do what we are able to do within the bounds of legality, and we regard that as very important. >> can i ask both of you, how confident are you that the assad regime is in control of its chemical weapons? at how confident are you that the u.s. and the ua can knows where those weapons are? and a second part. if you red line is determined to have been crossed, will any military action be targeted against chemical weapons sites and proportional? or is it more likely to be a broader attempt to change the strategic equation in syria and overthrow the assad regime? >> thank you for that. i think the evidence that we have is that the regime is largely in control of its chemical weapons, principal chemical weapons sites. that is not the same as saying that we are able to account for

every last unit of chemical stocks, but there is no evidence that the regime has lost control of significant chemical weapons sites yet. in terms of the location of weapons, i think we have a great deal of knowledge of the location of chemical weapons. that is not the same as saying that i can put my hand on my heart and say we know where every last item is. in terms of any possible response, i wouldn't want to close off any options. it really follows on from the answer to the previous question. we should keep our range of options open and under continuous consideration. we should look at the evolving situation on the ground and look at the range of options that would be appropriate and legal in any given situation. >> if the regime is only use chemical weapons tactically and

on a small scale, would you consider it legal and proportional to do a broader strategy of arming the rebels in order to overthrow the regime? >> well, i don't want to make legal judgments on the half. before we make a decision, we would expect to have detailed legal advice from attorney general about whether a proposed course of action was legal and proportionate in the circumstances that then prevailed. and i think having defined it that way, we need to keep our options as broad as possible within the bounds of legality and proportionality. >> another question on syria. secretary hammond, then i'd welcome your comments as well, secretary hagel. you seem to indicate this morning that in order to establish a chain of custody, the international community will likely need to wait for another tack to gain the right kind of

evidence, is that correct? and have initial samples and evidence trails collected by both countries degraded over time? >> i think the point i was making this morning was that the fact that we have set out our intention to establish evidence of the nature and caliber that would be acceptable in a court of law since it very clear message to the regime that any use of chemical weapons in the future, which by definition generates the potential to collect that evidence, as the price. and i hope we are sending a message that will have a deterrent effect. i'm not a technical expert, but i don't think you need to be a technical expert to know that after any use of a chemical agent there will be a degradation over time of the evidence that can be collected, and from the point of view of constructing a chain of custody of that evidence, clearly the longer the period that is

elapsed between the use of such an agent and the point where you acquire a sample, the less strong that chain of custody will be. >> so you would need a new xp? not necessarily would need it, but clearly if there were future use of chemical agents, that would generate new opportunities for us to establish a clear evidence of use to a legal standard of evidence. >> secretary hagel, are you confident that given the evidence that you already have or evidence that could be collected from past attacks you would be able to work with that or you would need a new attack to be able to -- >> i think secretary hammond said it exactly right. i really wouldn't add much to what he said. i would say again what the secretary has already noted, there is a legal issue here as

well. and that's what evidence is so critically important here. >> so you need to be able to link the center into the assad regime? >> well, you need the evidence if you're going to exercise certain options, a range of those options. that evidence is particularly important. >> perhaps i can just add something from a uk perspective. uk public opinion remembers the evidence we were presented with in 2003 around iraq, which turned out not to be valid. there is a very strong view that we have to have very clear, very high quality evidence before we make plans and act on that evidence. >> two questions if i may, one on syria, one on afghanistan. on syria to both of you. this is just a kind of minor detail. when you're looking at the

samples, i britain and america working the same source material or separate samples? the white house said in a conference call the other day that britain had its own investigation, quote unquote. i just want to be clear, are you looking at the different major or different material? and on afghanistan, mr. hammond, the prime minister said the other day that britain should encourage afghan interpreters to stay in the country. the deputy prime minister said is morally indefensible that interpreters would be left to their own fate in afghanistan. are we sending mixed messages to the 600 people who have risked their lives working for british forces in afghanistan? >> let me deal with the first point. i can't comment on evidence or the sources of intelligence that we are looking at for obvious reasons. but we are working in close collaboration to establish a robust, robustness to the analysis. ..

>> it is our wish, if we can, to construct an offer to them which attracts them to stay in afghanistan and be part of afghanistan's future. it is clearly the wish of the of afghan government to see as many of these people as possible make their future in afghanistan. and we think that it sends an important message about our confidence in the future of afghanistan that we're seeking to work to allow these people to build a future in afghanistan rather than simply abandoning

the countriment. >> as to your question regarding the intelligence pursuits, each country -- certainly, the united states -- uses its own intelligence agencies and institutions ask makes its -- and makes its own efforts. but we also collaborate, in this case with the united kingdom and other allies, to share intelligence. so it's both. >> that's all the time we have today. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public

policy events. and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. [inaudible conversations] >> live pictures from washington, d.c. where new sec chair mary jo white headlines the investment company institute's general membership meeting today. she is expected to discuss financial market regulations. later this morning there'll be a panel discussion on the economy and fiscal policy that'll take place. ed conrad and judd gregg will also be featured. this is live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] >> good morning. welcome, everyone. we're in the final laps here of our general membership meeting, and we are truly honored to have as our next speaker barry jo white -- mary jo white, chairman of the securities and exchange commission. chairman white was appointed by president obama in january and confirmed by the senate last month. the exceptionally strong bipartisan support she received in the confirmation process is, i think, a real testament to the extraordinary experience she brings to her office and to the long and successful record of her prior public service.

you know, in today's often polarized political environment that kind of bipartisan support augers very well, indeed, for her leadership of the sec. in public life chairman white is best known for her nine years as the united states attorney for the southern district of new york. as you know, that office litigates some of the most important and complex criminal and civil cases in the nation. during her tenure there, chairman white certainly saw her share of these including prosecutions stem thing from the bombings of the -- stemming from the bombings of the world trade center in 2001, 1993 and of our embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1998. in the private sector, chairman white most recently headed the litigation practice at plimpton. she's also served as director of the nasdaq stock exchange. at her nomination hearing in march, chairman white observed

that, quote: although the worst of the financial be crisis may be behind us, none of us can be complacent. chairman white, we want you to know we share your wariness of come play accept si. indeed, the theme of this conference seems to underscore the importance of an up changing commitment in a changed world. we realize that the trust reposed in us by some 90 million fund investors is something we must work hard every day to earn and to keep. and part of the obligation we owe to all those shareholders is to work collaboratively with the sec in good times and in bad no matter how difficult, no matter how controversial the issues may be. working hard to find solutions that seven investors -- that serve investors and strengthen our markets. this is something ici and its members have sought to do for many decades, and we look forward to continuing to do so under chairman white's

leadership at the commission. chairman white, we're honored that our 55th general membership meeting serves as the occasion for perhaps your first major public address as chairman, and we most sincerely thank you for joining us. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the 31st chairman of the united states securities and exchange commission, mary jo white. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> good morning, and thank you, paul, very much. i'm delighted to be here. even if i am standing on a box, but i think you can see me. [laughter] that's usually my biggest challenge in making remarks. but it truly is an ohioan to be here at -- an honor to be here at the ici, and to be here, as paul alluded to, for all of the jam-packed three weeks as the 31st chair of the united states securities and exchange commission. i'm not sure i believe it myself

yet, but -- before i begin, let me say that i join my sec colleagues in observing the passing of former ici president david silver. david led the ici true a period of -- through a period of extraordinary growth and change, serving as an advocate for both the industry and for its millions of investors. his leadership helped the industry thrive by offering important, by offering investors important innovations and choices. our condolences, our sincerest condolences go out to his family, his many friends and ici. as is our standard disclaimer at the sec, my remarks today are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the excision or commissioners. [laughter] i don't know how long i'm going to remember to say this, but it should, actually, rapidly become clear that my remarks at least today belong only to me, because i will be talking about the role

of the sec in an increasingly global financial regulatory system from the viewpoint of a chair on day 18 of her ten your. tenure. already, though, i find myself emphasizing to some outside of our agency that the international aspect of the sec's role is not a distraction from our important core or domestic duties. rather, that role must also be understood in order to fully understand and appreciate the agency's whole mission, to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. and it is now, it is how we are actually at the sec furthering that mission through our international efforts that i will speak just a bit about today. but let me start with an expression of deep admiration for the sec and its staff.

ever since my time as u.s. attorney in new york, i've been thoroughly impressed by the talent and dedication of the men and women at the sec. and that view has only solidified in the three weeks i have been on the job. despite the size and complexity of the american financial system and the impencety of the -- immensity of the challenges it presents regulators, the sec staff are doing an exceptional job of protecting investors and facilitating the flow of capital to businesses across this country. in fact, to say that they're doing an exceptional job dealing with the american financial system is actually to understate the scope of their current day task. effective regulation of the u.s. financial system requires us to be a part of the fabric of a global financial and regulatory system that transcends political boundaries. and it demands that we match our

regulatory and enforcement priorities with those of scores of other jurisdictions around the world. a defining fact of life at the sec today is that we are not alone in the global regulatory or space, and our duty to the investors, entrepreneurs and other market participants who rely on us means that we must find common ground with our counterparts abroad, collaborate on everyday matters like enforcement and accounting, and knit together a regulatory network that offers protection, consistency and stability to market participants. especially, yes, in the united states, but abroad as well. this global reality was quickly and forcefully driven home to me almost from the moment i was sworn in on april 10th. just to give you a flavor, over the last three weeks i have, for example, attended meetings with the secretary of treasury and central bank heads and

regulatory chiefs from canada, china, europe, japan, mexico, singapore and switzerland; been briefed for a meeting of the financial stability board and a london meeting of the international reporting standard foundation monitoring board; reviewed, shaped and voted on a thousand-page proposal for regulating cross-border derivative transactions which i'll come back to in a moment; and held courtesy meetings with the vice chair of the japan financial services ministry and the australian securities investment commissioning chairman who is also chairman of the international organization of securities commissions -- commission. and this is only a partial list of my international activities in the last couple of weeks. now, this has all occurred because while i believe that the united states as the safest, most resilient and robust markets in the world, we do realize we are not the only game in town. so throughout the sec we are

cooperating with our foreign counterparts in ways that unleash the fullest potential of our capital markets to drive economic growth and create jobs. and to do so in a way that does not lower the bar or relax the regular lair to -- regulatory and oversight standards that protect investors and stabilize markets. what happens overseas matters here at home and matters more every day. the fund industry knows this almost percent than anyone. -- almost better than anyone. american investors and fund managers make decisions based on financial reporting standards developed and financial statements audited overseas. a bad delive tyes trade -- derivatived trade or a threat to an e.u.-based financial institution could be layoffs, investor losses and tighter credit here at home. and the fraudsters are seeking to lure clients and tarnish the image of the industry you represent now across

international borders with the tap of a finger or the click of a mouse. i remember a time when the stock market -- i am that old -- can reports that you heard on the radio driving to work were yesterday's new york stock exchange and nasdaq's performances. now you hear about the if the si, all before breakfast, and it's simply assumed that a retail investor with, say, a reasonable retirement fund is interested and affected by all of this. u.s. investors rely on the sec to be at least as conscious as international financial market development as the business reporter on the local station. and so the sec is continuing to build on and strengthen its relationships with overseas regulators on a number of levels. it is a demanding and time-consuming task for the sec and for me personally, but it is a critically important task.

one-on-one conversations and participation in multilateral discussions, domestic regulatory recognition of foreign reporting and accounting practices, that is a few of the ways the sec is integrating itself into the global financial system. you know, over the years the sec has played quite an active role in such international bodies as the financial stability board which themselves have helped to insure coordination among financial regulators who share common regulatory objectives. such coordination not only allows agencies to better achieve their own domestic agenda, but by encouraging the adoption of high quality regulation around the globe, it also helps to revent regulatory arbitrage. the sec has long been at the fore front on multilateral efforts to assure that broad standard setting is coupled with

robust regulator-to-regulator assistance in oversight and enforcement matters. we've negotiated dozens, literally dozens of bilateral and multilateral cooperation arrangements that fill the gaps and facilitate sharing of critical enforcement and supervisory information with our overseas counterparts. regulatory globalizationing is now -- globalization is now a continuing and ongoing process and one that has gotten much more intensive and complex. we often find ourselves sailing in previously unchartered waters. until recently, for example, the multitrillion dollar derivatives market was largely unregulated. in the united states, the sec was essentially prohibited from regulating derivatives. now in the wake of a financial crisis to which to pick and terrible -- market contributed, the the sec is charged with enhancing u.s. stability by

working with other regulators to make multiple sets of rules for multiple regulators actually work in a global market. indeed, just two days ago by unanimous vote the commission opposed an approach for reconciling u.s. regulatory system, the u.s. regulatory system with requirements in other jurisdictions for swaps transacted across borders. this probably so important not only because it recognizes the global nature of derivatives, but because it is a linchpin in our efforts to finalize the new regulatory regime for our portion of the massive global market that we regulate. it provides needed certainty and rules of the road for market participants including knew pull funds -- mutual funds investing in derivatives. with the approval of this proposal, we can now move towards adopting the many substantive derivative rules that the agency has proposed over the last two years.

importantly, this proposal will help to inform foreign market participants which rules they must follow when their security-based swap transactions cross our borders in ways that increase risk in the united states. and rather than demanding that these market participants comply with two or more possibly conflicting set of rules, this proposal embraces an approach that we call substituted compliance. it is a workable solution to the potential for conflicting or overlapping rules, and it is an approach that recognizes and appreciates the global nature of regulation. substituted compliance would allow foreign market participants whose transactions would otherwise be subject to dodd-frank act requirements to comply instead with their home country requirements so long as, so long as regulatory outcomes are comparable with those you ur u.s. law. if, however, the home country

does not have corresponding, comparable regulatory outcomes, then the foreign participants would have to comply with u.s. rules. this approach recognizes rightly that we live neither in a my way or the highway world, nor a world of whole cloth acceptance of another jurisdiction's regulatory regime. it builds on the sec's ongoing efforts toward cooperation and collaboration with foreign authorities including through our work many the otc derivatives regulators' group. and it gives us the best hope of achieving internationally effective regulation without diminishing the protection our investors and markets demand and deserve. it does so in part by robustly and appropriately addressing risk that may come back to the united states through offshore derivative frank actions. you know -- transactions. you know, your industry, the fund industry, stands as a clear example of financial

globalization and the scope of the challenge we face. the global mutual fund industry now has representation in 45 countries and manages nearly 27 trillion in assets tied to markets across the globe. almost half those assets, more than 13 trillion worth, were managed by the roughly 7600 mutual funds domiciled in the united states. many of those funds invest in foreign issuers listed in the u.s., or they invest overseas. consequently, if there is an accounting scandal in brazil, a market disturbance in frankfurt or in hong kong, american clients of these funds can be harmed. the ici itself has acknowledged the growing global footprint of the mutual fund industry and the need for international regulatory coordination. london-based ici global, as you know, was incorporated in october 2011 to give voice to internationally active investment funds and to advocate

for transnational solutions to regulatory challenges. and ici global's substantive comments on applying the proposed european bonus caps to mutual fund managers and the european commission's proposed financial transactions tax are important voices to add to the dialogue on these international issues. while the united states, again as you know, has been the focus of much of the policy debate surrounding money market funds, those funds are global investors and are an area of focus for international regulators as well. as regulation moved forward on several parallel paths, i am hopeful that we can build upon the sec's past coordination with global regulators to develop approaches that are consistent, workable and effective. as the sec works to develop and propose meaningful money market reform, our goal is to preserve

the economic benefits of the product while addressing potential redemption pressures and the susceptibility of these funds to runs, runs in which retail investors especially are likely to suffer losses. while i am sure that you would like me to say more about this topic today -- [laughter] i need to stop there as the staff and commissioners are actively engaged in discussions designed to yield an appropriate and balanced proposal in the near future. i am confident that the ultimate result of this process will take into account the views of commissioners who vary in background and perspective but share the goals of protecting investors and promoting market efficiency and capital formation. the sec regulatory process is grounded in sound economic analysis and is well informed by public comment including helpful comments from the ici fund investors and others with important and relevant

perspectives on money market funds. this is the process the sec will bring to pear as it considers -- bear as it considers proposing money market fund reform. and i hope that, ultimately, it will lead to a good investor-oriented result that has been formed by and can be shared with other regulators in the global marketplace. you know, of course regulatory collaboration, which we've been talking about, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an effective global financial system. much of our work coordinating with overseas regulators goes towards insuring that we have an effective enforcement mechanism. while international enforcement cooperation has long been important to our mission at the sec, it is now more essential than ever to quickly identify suspicious trading involving overseas traders and to act if necessary to freeze the proceeds. fortunately, we've created an effective framework for sharing

information across borders during enforcement investigations. it is one of the many products of our bilateral and multilateral efforts. remarkably, there are now 94 signatories to the iasco multilateral mou which creates a seamless web of securities authorities that are empowered to use their respective enforcement tools on each oh's baf -- other behalf. in addition, the sec facilitates enforcement cooperation, cooperation in conducting examinationings and technical assistance. in one case file last year, crucial assistance from the hong kong securities authorities allowed us to pursue traders who reaped more than $13 million in illegal profits by trading in advance of an acquisition. the assistance also allowed the sec to file insider trading charges and obtain an emergency freeze of assets held in the u.s. by traders in hong kong and sung por.

at the time the case was filed by the sec, it was only four days after the acquisition announcement, and the sec did not even know the identities of most of the traders. but the hong kong authorities quickly provided the bank, brokerage and business records necessary to identify the traders and the details of the trades. to date, we've already obtained more than $17 million in disgorgements and monetary penalties. international cooperation made this happen. cooperation, obviously, goes both ways. in a case parallel to one brought by the sec, the ontario securities commission brought its own settled action against a former investment banker who is a canadian citizen. sec and osc staffs work closely together sharing investigative files and collaborating on compelled testimony in the months leading up to the settlements. we're also complementing and enhancing these international enforcement efforts by using proactive analytic techniques

developed entirely within the sec to confront the increasing number of foreign-based issuers who seek to turn their isolation into opportunities for fraud. the enforcement division at the sec working with our colleagues from around the agency form the cross-border working group and interdivisional team that brings individuals with a variety of backgrounds and expertise together to address risks associated with u.s. issuers whose primary operations are located overseas. the efforts of this group are really paying off. although most foreign-based issuers are engaged in entirely legitimate business operations, others may take advantage of the remoteness of their operations to end gawj in fraud or other -- engage in fraud or other securities law violations. we have seen this particularly recently with respect to certain issuers whose operations are primarily base inside the people's republic of china. we have wrought numerous cases involving market manipulation, accounting and disclosure

violations and auditor misconduct among other charges. in addition, to date we have seen the suspension of trading in at least seven foreign-based entities, stop orders preventing further stock sales, registration revocation of at least 53 foreign-based issuers and administrative proceedings designed to determine whether to suspend or revoke the rebelling rebelling -- registrations of several more. of course, misrepresentations and other unlawful conduct travel in both transactions across borders which is another reason why our partnership with our regulatory counterparts abroad so important. among the most prominent concerns in this direction is bribery by u.s. companies overseas which not only undermines international markets and governments, but also simultaneously undermines the reporting and disclosure integrity of our own markets. thus, strong and fair enforcement of the foreign

corrupt practices act which forbids u.s. companies from bribing foreign officials has been and will continue to be a priority for us at the sec. successful fcpa cases also increasingly require assistance from foreign law enforcement agencies and authorities. that is why we recently partnered with the doj and the fbi in conducting a foreign bribery training program that provided intensive training to 130 foreign investigators and prosecutors from 30 countries, many of which the sec staff relies on for mutual legal assistance in fcpa cases. you know, not every international action draws as much attention as a major fcpa case or a rules proposal concerning the multitrillion dollar derivatives market. there are technical challenges as well. often just as important over the long run, but flying more under

the radar on a day-to-day basis. for instance, u.s. funds invest large sums in companies based overseas. the sec's challenge then is to insure that fund managers, their clients as well as all types of investors receive accurate, timely and comparable data when they sit down to study a company's financials regardless of what country the company is based in. and how do we accommodate different but equally legitimate financial reporting standards? well, as you know, in 2007 the commission agreed to accept the use of international financial reporting standards by foreign private issuers for their financial statements included in commission filings without u.s. gap reconciliations. over 450 foreign private issuers representing trillions of dollars in market capitalization use ifrs to raise capital in the u.s. in addition, we have eased the deregistration procedures and simplified the exchange act registration exemption for

foreign companies. recognizing that it is not necessary to require registration and reporting by a thinly-traded foreign company already listed on a foreign stock exchange and subject to similar oversight in its home country. we are also active participants in the process for establishing accounting standards globally. the financial accounting standards board is closely and actively engaged with the international accounting standards board in pursuit of their joint con very general -- convergence projects. you know, but the promise of global accounting standards fades if there is not consistency in their application, implementation and enforcement. here again we are active participants not only through the staff's filing review process of foreign private issuers, but also through our collaboration with our foreign

counterparts bilaterally as well as through iasco. let me just sum up my whirlwind international tour this morning by saying that enhancing our profile as a globally-focused regulator is an ongoing priority at the sec. from accounting standards to ponzi schemes, from annual reports to otc derivatives, the sec is determined to maintain a regulatory structure that accommodates jurisdictional differences without lowering standards. this isn't an effort aimed at the elite. our collaborations with international regulators, of international standards also means to protect america's mom and pop investors; workers, families and future retirees who recognize that we live in a global marketplace and seek to maximize their options and returns by also looking abroad or to funds that invest abroad. they seek to, they seek exposure

to international markets through mutual funds, etfs and closed-in funds. and they rely both on our vigilance at the sec and your expertise as they invest their hard earned dollars in the international market. it is a challenge accommodating jurisdictional issues is a delicate task. understanding that despite the size and dynamism of our markets, other jurisdictions have different requireties and solutions really takes a conscious effort and a more expansive mindset and weaving international concerns into even the most seemingly domestic rulemaking or policy takes time. but we understand that an exclusively or even largely domestically-focused regulatory approach is no longer acceptable or effective. american investors are focused on international investing in the global market place. american regulators must be as well. and that is certainly what i am

committed to doing. thank you for inviting me, appreciate it. [applause] >> chairman white, thank you very much. you've been gracious to accept some questions. >> gracious is one word, right? [laughter] okay. >> from i have 12 questions. [laughter] >> i have one answer. [laughter] >> we'll go on to another question. >> okay. [laughter] >> you know, this one isn't about money funds, but it touches on the subject in a way. as you know, last fall the sec's division of risks, strategy and financial innovation issued a study on money market funds. it was a study that had been requested by some of your colleagues on the commission in connection with the consideration of what additional reforms might be appropriate. we looked at the study very

carefully and, frankly, we think it was a very objective and carefully-done piece of work. the analysis that it did of money market funds in the context of the financial crisis and the reforms implemented since then, i think, will contribute very substantially to the sec's work. now, we know these kinds of studs are not simple or -- studies are not simple or easy to undertake, but this suggests they can be beneficial for complex rulemaking like this. do you expect that a study of this kind will become something of a model for future rulemaking? >> first, i agree the study's an extremely impressive study, an extremely useful study, and it was in response to a number of questions raised by a number of our commissioners. an economic analysis, really robust economic analysis, is really in the fabric of our rulemaking, and then there are complicated issues that empirical data can bear upon, you know, that will be done. so the short answer to your question is, yes, that is what we do now and we'll continue to

do. >> a second question really stems from an experience that some of our executives had recently. we heard from general michael hayden, former director of the cia as well as the national security agency, he was talking to us about cybersecurity. at your nomination hearing, you sate thed that one of your -- you stated that one of your priorities is to put the sec in a position to fully understand today's high-speed, high-tech, dispersed marketplace and to examine developments in the market that can unexpectedly affect investors. there's no doubt that markets are constantly changing, and advancements in technology have a lot to say about that. while there are undoubtedly benefits that have accrued, there have also been, as you're well aware, a number of very high profile technological failures including the recent hash crash that affected the market very dramatically at least for a couple of moments. so the question is, how much are you concerned about this pattern

of technological fall your? how does the sec propose to address it, and is this an area where regulation has some effective limits? >> i've actually solved it in my first 18 days. [laughter] but there's no question that, you know, a significant issue. i mean, anything that can cause, frankly, any kind of distortion in the marketplace is something of concern to the sec and all of us. the sec has taken steps since the flash crash in particular, you know, to deal with, you know, those issues, and it's a matter of, you know, sort of constant study. i mean, it's -- and regulation, yes, i think can be very helpful. i think the steps the sec has taken and will take are seriously addressing those issues. can you stop every hack into your system, you know, whether you're a news organization or you're a company, the answer to that is you probably cannot do that. but i think some of the recent events would suggest, i think,

everybody is you want to make sure you've done everything you can in your whatever the type of your organization is to safeguard it as best you can, get state of the art systems, make sure that they're reviewed constantly to try to prevent such hacks. if they happen -- and, again, can you prevent them all? i mean, that's, obviously, you probably can't prevent all of anything -- be vigilant about correcting false or misleading information that may get out into the marketplace, you know, as a result of that. but i think this whole area has to be a constant focus for both the regulators and the broader business community. >> we're going to leave it at that, but i just wanted to say we reserved this friday morning spot at the general membership meeting for the leadership of the sec, so consider yourself invited back next year. >> thank you. [laughter] oh, i think i have to say yes to that one, right? i'd be delighted to come back. thank you very much. thank you. [applause]

>> for just 18 days on the job, it was a pretty remarkable tour of the horizon. so we wish chairman white great, great success at the ip leadership of the sec. we are going to take a 15 minute break so the hotel staff can sort of take down the breakfast. so come back here many 15 minutes. thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we have more live coverage from the investment company institute meeting coming up in about two hours or so when two former chairs of the senate budget committee will speak, kent conrad and judd gregg will discuss the budget deficit, taxes and government spending. that's set to begin at 10:30 a.m. eastern live here on c-span2. they may talk about the new unemployment numbers that just came out. the labor department reporting this morning a stronger than expected jobs report, 165,000 jobs added, the unemployment rate now down to 7.5%. president obama's in mexico today, part of a trip that takes him to costa rica as well. he's expected to speak to a group of students in mexico city this morning at about 10:40 eastern. weevil have that live on -- we'll have that live on c-span. and c-span's road to the white house 2016 begins later this afternoon. vice president joe biewden attends the state's democratic

party annual dinner live at 7:30 eastern on c-span and later texas republican senator ted cruz. the road to the white house 2016 begins tonight at 7:30 eastern here on c-span. >> your watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> a discussion now on reporting news in a digital world. the atlanta press club hosted an event with bill grueskin, an academic affairs dean who is also the former online managing editor for "the wall street journal". he talks about the line between reporter spontaneity in social media versus the need for

careful editing and journalists who have been fired for expressing opinions on social media. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you, tom. that was very nice. it's the first time i've ever heard -- i've opinion in the business for nearly -- i've been in the business for nearly 40 years, so -- thank you. thank you very much. so how many of you are alumni? i just want to get a sense. wow, that is a great crowd. well, thank you for coming. and we have some of the future alumni here. i think we admitted seven students for next year's class from the atlanta area. are there a few of them here? could you raise your hand? there you are. well, congratulations on being admitted. [applause] and we very much hope that we'll see you here, we'll see you at columbia. i would say this fall, but we start you august 1st because there's nothing quite liking beg

in new york city in the middle of august to determine whether journalism is the right thing for you. [laughter] so i'm going to give a prepared speech today which i don't usually do, and i don't have a powerpoint or any slides, so i hope you'll forgive me for that. we are, i'm going to be talking for about half an hour about social media. this is not a how-to session, but it's more some thoughts i have on how social media is changing the way we as journalists think about and do our jobs. i am used to being interrupted, so if you have a question that's burning within you and you want to ask it, go ahead and stand up at the microphone, or if not, we'll take questions at the end. so, again, thank you very much for hosting me today. so i want to start by telling you the stories of two journalists, both of them who work for u.s. publications, pote of them based -- both of them based in the middle east. one is a "wall street journal" correspondent who was stationed in baghdad in 2004 and covered some of the bloodiest months of the iraq war. the other is a new york times bureau chief who was sent just

last week to jerusalem and was soon envelope inside the crisis in gaza. both of them use digital means outside their news organizations to express their opinions about the conflicts they were covering. both of them came under intense scrutiny for doing this. but eight years separates their time in the spotlight, and the difference in the velocity of changing technologies and the reactions of their news organizations raised questions that i believe will affect all of us who practice journalism in the digital era. so let me start with the first journalist. in the fall of 2004 as the u.s. invasion of iraq was careening dangerously off course, a woman named -- [inaudible] who was the "wall street journal"'s bureau chief sent what she thought was a private e-mail to a few of her closest friends. i'm going to quote from it at some length this evening because her passion and eloquence are important to what we'll be discussing. here's what she wrote. being a foreign correspondent in

baghdad these days is like being under house arrest. my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick asss story, but to stay alive and make sure our iraqi employees stay alive. in baghdad i'm a security personnel first, and i'm a reporter second. in detail after detail, she showed how american policy had gone awry. quote, theo signs of calming do, she wrote. if anything, it is getting stronger, more organized and more sophisticated. cops are being murdered by the dozens every day, and the unsur gents are infiltrating their ranks. then she went beyond description of the carnage using what she thought was the comfort zone of a private e-mail to go beyond standard jowrmistic norms, and she said this: despite president bush's rosy assessments, iraq remains a disaster. if under saddam it was a potential threat, under the americans it has been transformed to imminent and

active threat. she called the war, quote: a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the united states for decades to come. now, as i said, she wrote this as a private e-mail to a close circle of friends, something she had been doing for several years ever since the september 11th attacks on new york and washington. and i interviewed her a few months ago to ask her how she remembers this. she told me i started it because close friends and family wanted to know what was going on. now, keep in mind this was in 2004 when social media was in its infancy. mark zuckerberg had just dropped out of harvard and had not quite created facebook. i think -- can you still hear me? okay. um, and it was years before twitter would become the powerful social network of billions of instantaneous thoughts. but something happened with her e-mail, something she did not anticipate. the digital platform acted as an

accelerant, providing fuel to the spark of her unsparing prose. that combined with her status as a wall street journal journalist covering a controversial war just months before a hotly-contested presidential election insured that her e-mail would move beyond the small group that she intended it for. indeed, it found it way into increasingly larger con sentive -- concentric circles outside that group. it took a few weeks, but eventually her private e-mail would be published in part or in whole in blogs all around the world. an electronic letter meant for a few friends had become a must read for hundreds of thousands of people. as she told me, nothing i'd done had ever gone viral like that. suddenly, i was getting e-mails from as far away as south africa and australia. many of us found her account compelling. ..

>> one blogger wrote my strong suspicions is in over her head. she is terrified by the danger facing journalism baghdad. for many readers, the reference to the policies seemed unprofessional for an objective reporter. particularly one from such a mainstream publication as "the wall street journal." within a few days they announced

he would be taken a month off and the journalist top editor came to the defense of her overall professionalism if not her enough. paul steiger, managing editor told this to the "new york post." her private opinions in no way distorted her coverage. he then went on to commend her track record at the journal as a model of intelligence and courageous reporting and scrupulous accuracy and fairness. indeed, disapprove not to be accused obstacle to agree. in the years since she wrote that e-mail she has returned as a journal correspond to iran, lebanon and to many of the most volatile zones in the middle east. she continues to practice what paul steiger called at the time intelligence and courageous reporting. she also went on to write a book about four years later about the iraq war and in afford of this book she noted how that e-mail that she wrote had acted as a catalyst not just for her feelings but for the feelings of her readers.

this is what she wrote in the opening pages of her book. because i was writing to friends i spoke freely without the restraints of daily journalism that obliged need to be distant and objective. the emotional and personal town grabbed the public in a way that my published pieces for the newspaper seldom do. the reaction overwhelmed me as strange as wrote to me asking, is it really that bad in iraq? we had no idea. let me reread it is part of her introduction. the restraints of daily journalism obliged me to be distant and objective. she felt there was no room for what she called the quote the emotional term that would affect readers in ways that standard journalism simply couldn't match. at the time this happened i was a managing editor of "the wall street journal"'s online operations and i was involved in is only so far as i was to be recipient of multiple reader e-mails, most of them stirred up in heavily orchestrated online letterwriting campaigns by conservative bloggers.

i was glad the journal didn't take more punitive action, relieved to see that she return to the middle east. the truth is i largely forgotten about it until a few months ago. then in late november of last year, "the new york times" nude chiefs came under scrutiny for a sense of provocative tweets and facebook post that she sent out during and before the gaza conflict. at one point the bureau chief whose name is jodi, sent a public tweet to a controversial palestinian american journalist with these words. hey there, would love to chat sometime. my friend says good things. much more controversial, she took the facebook observation that when she recently talked, quote just lost a relative or your gathering belongs from a bombed out house, they seemed a bit ho-hum.

a reporter at a premier news organizations like the times and "wall street journal," can go only so far in expressing her opinions. in this case a very unusual thing. she managed to anger people on both sides of the israeli-palestinian controversy. she did come to apologize for her language. she told "the new york times" public editor that she was wrong to characterize palestinians in fear of death as quote whole. i should've talked about steadfastness or resiliency. that was ridiculous word to use, she said. over all she acknowledged i just wasn't careful enough. but that may -- wasn't enough for the new york times. after these incidents she was instructed to run or social media posts via an editor in new york. according to sullivan, the idea is to capitalize on the promise of social news engagement with readers while not exposing the

times of reporters unfiltered and unedited thoughts. this is an important line and i want to say one more time. ththe times wants to ensure it s not to expose the reporters unfiltered and unedited thoughts. so how is this going? doesn't seem very sanguine about this new arrangement. i know arrangement. i know this thanks an insightful paper by a ph.d student at columbia journalism school and he recently interviewed her by enough. this new editing policy for social media quote takes a lot of intellectual sense but maybe not so much practical sense. i found the back and forth over what i should write and how i should write it, a back and forth very welcome in the newspaper editing business to feel awkward for facebook and twitter. the very act of bringing in an editor and having all kinds of exchanges over what to post just seems somewhat benevolent to the fore. whenever concerns was for

tactical. she sent proposed which are facebook posts to editors in new york in the morning, jerusalem time, and they may not be returned by her bosses for six or seven hours or so. quote i'm not sure that an edited he is a feed worth following. plus a facebook page is turned into a forum for middle eastern vitriol from both sides. especially when combined with the fact that my feet have got an anemic and less interesting we're going to lose whatever momentum we were building. and so, what do we make of how journalists ought to conduct themselves in this new era? it is of course a long-standing center, the reporters should be objectively observe is acting as handmaidens of thanks that our readers and viewers need to make rational informed decisions. that certainly does not mean that journalists must simply provide a recitation of opposing sides on any issue.

if anything is becoming increasingly important for reporters to play a larger role in explaining and analyzing what their public sees and hears. still, it's not simple. it never was and the digital age it has become more complicated. we on the one of the reasons for that, digital platforms accelerate and extend the ways our remarks travel among everyone, from her friends and family to total strangers halfway around the world. in 2004 it took several weeks for the e-mail to be distributed and eventually publish online. in 2012, took a few seconds for the tweets to be read and re-tweeted endlessly. the cycle moves much faster now. indeed the clutch i apologize for saying it. the less we remember the reporters especially those working for organizations like the new york times or "the wall street journal" have a deep obligation to the institutions, for everything they get. first of course they receive steady paychecks, health insurance, maybe a retirement benefit or to.

but they get to think there is more important journalistically, access and audio. when jody arrived in jerusalem at the times new bureau chief last fall, she was instantaneously able to reach resources in ways that few competing journalists do. this isn't some because of her past accomplishments which is significant. this is by where she works. the new york times can send a scarecrow to jerusalem and sources are calling to offer help. reporters have another big advantage, and audience the institute support for decades to build and retain and solidify. that audience is big with millions of print readers and tens of millions of unique users online. this audience has tremendous influence. any story but a broadcast by reporter from the times or npr or bbc is going to be heard and read a diplomats in the state department, by numbers of the israeli knesset, by members and the palestinian authority.

so in that sense is the balance of power quite clear? for generations reporters have always owned almost total allegiance to the institutions until the decide to move to a different newspaper or network. so journalists have from time to time gotten into trouble for making contributions to political candidates or for showing off their public demonstrations about hot issues like abortion. for good reasons many publishers have found it necessary to contribute, to continue to exercise this authority. now over the reporters who use social media. in 2011 the american society of newspaper editors compiled a number of newspaper, news companies policies. most of them attended took us the very footballs that were come across with a post on facebook and twitter. one of the most interesting policies that i found from the "washington post" which states that its reporters and editors must relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. "washington post" journalist must recognize that any content associate with them in an online

social network is for practical purposes the equivalent of what appears beneath the bylines in the newspaper or our website. so in other words, no matter what digital identity of reporters and editors to choose, whether they're remaining on twitter about an important developing on the beat are showing off their daughters birthday cake on facebook, "washington post" journalist must follow the company's code of ethics and impartiality. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? will get to that. we see an effort to retain their professional credibility on citizens of different backgrounds and police but in part because they believe it will help them stay relevant in the public discourse. and the reasons for this are well expressed by a writer named john lloyd from the financial times who said this a little over a year ago. all journalism is a matter of power. that power includes the major ones that statement and organize

public opinion and incidental pressure on the political level. but to have the power of news organizations need to be organizations, which have a collective memory of clear goal, ideals, commercial and legal departments, a reputation which will assist reporters to gain entry, a career structure so it can attract people who see it something worth doing. that is such organizations professionalize the collection of news and give it a structure. so in that light i want to pose a question to you. even as institutions seek to preserve the traditional lives of conduct by their staff, it is still so clear what the institutions reach ends and the individual journalist responsibility begins. i am wary of platitudes about a digital changes everything, but this is a case where the legacy ways the defining practices and norms are coming under intense pressure from the internet and social media. there are several reasons. first, the institutions themselves are under increasing

economic pressure and that makes these issues more difficult. newspapers and tv stations find it necessary to drive more traffic to their websites and other digital properties. to accomplish that it's critical that social media be part of their mix. the reporters must deploy twitter and facebook that draws bigger audiences and drive more usage on their sites. many users of social media find it must be consistently provocative or at least interesting in order to be successful. provocative almost always means some tweets impose are going to go all right. moreover, encouraging this directive relationship between journalism and readers will require rethinking traditional rules about how journalists are edited and supervise. at most newspapers, certainly every taper i worked there, every word of copy that appeared in print have been read by at least one editor, and very often two or three. but can you do that in social media? as we saw with the new york

times middle east bureau chief, spontaneity and close editing cannot coexist. remember what jody said, it just seems an applet to the form. but there's another issue, one of those more directly to the tens relationship of reporters and their employers. journalists reputations, and by extension, their market value, given increase in on their ability to attract an audience. that's true whether they work for huge news organization or they're part of a small startup. this is hard for many of us to understand. for many years journalists haven't cared that much about how may people read or watched their stories. for one, most reporters see themselves as members of a large team, and that's always been hard to determine with very much precision the contribution of any individual journalist. second, those metrics until recently had been hard to measure. for traditional media you may get a general idea of how may people watching the broadcast